Joonatan Henriksson

Building a Strategy Implementation

Framework for a Consultancy Com-
pany
Subtitle
Metropolia University of Applied Sciences

Master’s Degree
Business Informatics

Thesis

23.11.2018
 Abstract

Joonatan Henriksson
Author
Building a Strategy Implementation Framework for a Consul-
Title
tancy Company

Number of Pages 60 pages + 3 appendices

Date 23 November 2018

Degree Master’s Degree

Degree Programme Business Informatics

Instructor(s) Thomas Rohweder, DSc (Econ), Principal Lecturer

The objective of this Master´s thesis is to build a strategy implementation framework for the
case company.

The case company is a Finnish consultancy company that has grown significantly over the
past few years, but managing strategy implementation across multiple business units and
international market areas has become harder. The strategy implementation framework built
in this thesis is an approach to solve this problem.

The research approach utilized in this thesis is qualitative research. Data collection was car-
ried out by the case company’s individual stakeholder interviews. The interviewed stakehold-
ers were selected in two categories. The first category consisted of the director level hori-
zontally across all the case company’s market areas. The second category consisted of a
business leader, business manager and consultant vertically within one business unit. Gath-
ering necessary information on feasible strategy implementation and management frame-
works was based on literature review.

Based on the analysis of the collected data and the literature review, a conceptual strategy
management framework was designed. The designed conceptual framework is a combina-
tion of Balanced Scorecard by Norton and Kaplan (1996) and Objectives and Key Results
by Doerr (2018). The conceptual framework also includes a yearly strategy management
cycle, customized for the case company.

To create the proposal of the strategy implementation framework, the conceptual framework
was assessed and co-developed in workshops with the key stakeholders of the case com-
pany.

In conclusion, the co-developed proposal of the framework was piloted and revised by cre-
ating the roll-out plan for the strategy implementation framework using the proposed frame-
work itself.

Keywords strategy implementation framework, strategy management, ob-

jectives and key results, OKRs, balanced scorecard, hoshin kanri
Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Business context 1

1.2 Business challenge 1
1.3 Outline of the thesis report on hand 2

2 Project plan 3

2.1 Research design 3

2.2 Data plan 4

3 Analysis of case company’s current strategy management tools 4

3.1 Overview of this data stage 4

3.2 Description of current strategy and related existing target setting 5
3.3 Description and illustration of currently used implementation tools 6
3.4 Summary (pros and cons of strategy and tools) 6

4 Good practice of strategy implementation in literature 8

4.1 Overview of this data stage 8

4.2 Balanced Scorecard 8
4.2.1 Clarifying and translating the vision 9
4.2.2 Financial perspective 10
4.2.3 Customer perspective 10
4.2.4 Internal-Business-Process perspective 11
4.2.5 Learning and growth perspective 12
4.2.6 Summary of measures 12
4.2.7 Three principles in linking the Balanced Scorecard measures into strategy 13
4.2.8 Performance drivers 13
4.2.9 Cause-and-effect relationships 13
4.2.1 Linkage to financials 14
4.2.11 Communicating and linking 14
4.2.12 Planning and target setting 14
4.2.13 Strategic feedback and learning 15
4.3 Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) 16
4.3.1 Objectives 16
4.3.2 Key results 17
4.3.3 Setting OKRs 18
 4.3.4 Tracking OKRs 18
4.3.5 Evaluating OKRs 19
4.4 Hoshin Kanri 19
4.4.1 Hoshin Planning: Drivers 21
4.4.2 Hoshin Planning: Driver Policies 21
4.4.3 Hoshin Planning: Driver Measures to KPIs 22
4.4.4 Hoshin Planning: X-matrix 23
4.4.5 Hoshin Deployment 24
4.4.6 Hoshin Control 25
4.5 Summary of the reviewed frameworks 27
4.5.1 Pros and cons of Balanced Scorecard 28
4.5.2 Pros and cons of OKRs 29
4.5.3 Pros and cons of Hoshin Kanri 29
4.6 Conceptual framework 30

5 Co-developing strategy implementation tools for the case company 31

5.1 Overview of this data stage 31

5.2 Creating the strategic objectives and measures 31
5.2.1 Using Balanced Scorecard perspectives to translate the vision into strategic
objectives 31
5.2.2 Creating and validating organizational unit level strategic objectives 33
5.3 Setting Objectives and Key Results 39
5.3.1 Setting Objectives 39
5.3.2 Setting Key Results 39
5.4 Annual strategy implementation cycle 41
5.4.1 Creating strategic objectives, measures and OKRs 42
5.4.2 Publishing OKRs 44
5.4.3 Tracking OKRs 44
5.4.4 Evaluating OKRs 44
5.4.5 Separation of OKRs and the compensation model 46
5.5 Summary of the proposed strategy implementation framework 46

6 Piloting the proposed framework by establishing a strategy implementation plan for

the case company using the framework 48

6.1 Overview of this data stage 48

6.2 Building the implementation plan 48
6.2.1 Identifying the relevant top-level strategic objectives 49
6.2.2 Creating and prioritizing strategic objectives and measures 52
6.3 Validating the identified strategic Objectives and Measures 53
 6.3.1 Creating OKRs 55
6.4 Lessons learned and feedback received on implementation planning 56
6.4.1 Creating strategic objectives 56
6.4.2 Creating OKRs 57
6.4.3 Tracking OKRs 57
6.4.4 Annual cycle 57
6.5 Summary of the potentially revised framework 58

7 Discussion and conclusions 58

7.1 Summary of the thesis project 58

7.2 Managerial recommendation 59
7.3 Evaluation of the trustworthiness of the project and its outcome 60

References

Appendices
Appendix 1. Actualized data plan
Appendix 2. Current state analysis interview questions
Appendix 3. Conceptual framework co-development meeting notes
 1 (67)

1 Introduction

1.1 Business context

Case company Nixu Corporation is a cybersecurity company, with its headquarters in

Finland and offices in Sweden, the Netherlands, the US and China. Nixu is fast growing
company in a fast-growing market. Current headcount is approximately 350 people
across all market areas. The organization structure model is a matrix including horizontal
group level management and support functions, vertical market area management and
business functions.

Case company is going through a strategy refresh process and in order to fulfil its vision
and to capture the desired growth targets, it needs to ensure a proper implementation of
the refreshed strategy.

1.2 Business challenge

It has been identified by the researcher working in the case company, that due high
growth and number of new people in the organization, there are inefficacies and lack of
coordination in the current way the strategy is being interpreted and followed throughout
the organization.

For example, there is no uniform processes to guide and follow up strategy implementa-
tion across different countries and business units. Leaders and managers are intensively
immersed in keep up running the day-to-day operations and the important strategic ob-
jectives that could help the company to dramatically improve the company’s performance
and competitive advantage are left with little or no management at all.

This generic problem is well summarized by Ken Favaro in his article in Harvard Busi-
ness Review, “when business leaders conflate strategy, implementation, and execution,
they usually end up with a lot of the trappings of running a modern-day company or
business unit — such as goals and targets; plans and initiatives; and mission, vision, and
purpose statements — but very little actual strategy, implementation, or execution.” (Fa-
varo, 2015).
 2 (67)
The objective of the thesis is to develop strategy implementation framework for the case
company including target setting, follow-up and measurement of strategy implementation
progress.

The outcome of thesis will be a practical framework for implementing case company’s
strategy.

1.3 Outline of the thesis report on hand

The research approach utilized in this thesis is qualitative research. Data collection was
carried out by the case company’s individual stakeholder interviews. The interviewed
stakeholders were selected in two categories. The first category consisted of the director
level horizontally across all the case company’s market areas. The second category con-
sisted of a business leader, business manager and consultant vertically within one busi-
ness unit. Gathering necessary information on feasible strategy implementation and
management frameworks was based on literature review.

Based on the analysis of the collected data and the literature review, a conceptual strat-
egy management framework was designed. The designed conceptual framework is a
combination of Balanced Scorecard by Norton and Kaplan (1996) and Objectives and
Key Results by Doerr (2018). The conceptual framework also includes a yearly strategy
management cycle, customized for the case company.

To create the proposal of the strategy implementation framework, the conceptual frame-
work was assessed and co-developed in workshops with the key stakeholders of the
case company.

In conclusion, the co-developed proposal of the framework was piloted and revised by
creating the roll-out plan for the strategy implementation framework using the proposed
frame-work itself.
 3 (67)
2 Project plan

2.1 Research design

The thesis project plan is conducted in three phases, current state analysis and literature
review, building the design for the strategy implementation toolkit/framework and validat-
ing its viability in the case company.

An overview of the plan is described in Figure 1. First phase is the current state analysis,
where the case company’s refreshed strategy is reviewed and stakeholders are inter-
viewed. The current state analysis is followed by a literature review, where best practices
are sought out from literature. The conceptual framework is built upon the current state
analysis and the literature review in the design phase. Finally, the conceptual framework
is validated by using the proposed framework to build an implementation plan for the
framework.

Figure 1 Overview of the thesis plan

 4 (67)
2.2 Data plan

The data for each phase is gathered from different sources as described in Table 1. The
case company’s refreshed strategy is reviewed and multiple case company’s stakehold-
ers in different levels in the organization are interviewed. The conceptual framework is
based on literature review and co-developed in workshops with selected stakeholders
and the case company Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The validation is done together
with the case company CEO.

Table 1 Data plan

3 Analysis of case company’s current strategy management tools

This section contains the description and results for the current state analysis for the
case company’s current strategy implementation tools.

3.1 Overview of this data stage

During the current state analysis, eleven (11) interviews were conducted. The inter-
viewed organization roles included horizontally the group management team and market
area leaders, and vertically one business unit leader, one business manager and a con-
sultant.

Case company’s strategy was also refreshed during spring 2018. The old strategy from
2014 as well as the new strategy was reviewed and analyzed, since some of the inter-
viewed people had also been still implementing the old strategy.
 5 (67)

The interviews included both, the implementation of the old and refreshed strategy at the
point the interviews were made, during summer 2018.

The interviews consisted questions of the following topics:

• Strategy planning
• Strategy implementation
• Implementation measurement

The interviews also included an evaluation of the current strategy implementation pro-
cess with a grading from one (1) to five (5), 1 being poor and 5 being excellent.

3.2 Description of current strategy and related existing target setting

Old strategy from 2014 was formulated on a strategy map. The strategy map was loosely
based on the Norton & Kaplan’s (1996) four strategic perspectives:

• Financial perspective
• Client perspective
• Methodology perspective
• Learning and growth perspective

All the strategic perspectives in the previous strategy included six to seven topics, which
were intended to be transferred into actionable tasks for the business units and teams.

The refreshed strategy includes only four high level topics:

• Cybersecurity talent community

• Cybersecurity partner for digitalization
• Data-driven services on global platforms
• Expanding Nixu’s market presence

Interviews reflected that there is no clear strategic style chosen for the case company.
Yet, in the Master’s thesis of Sarjakivi (2013), the case company’s strategic style was
analyzed to be adaptive.
 6 (67)

3.3 Description and illustration of currently used implementation tools

The old strategy implementation process included a workshop, where business units and
teams were tasked to capture one or two of the most important items for their business,
and to formulate a plan how these items would be put into implementation.

Case company’s Intranet included a form, where these prioritized topics were recorded
and where they were intended to be followed. The follow-ups did not happen as planned
and the tool was not actively used. Though from the interviews it can be conducted, that
the strategy implementation has occurred organically within the business units, business
support functions and individual teams, with variable success.

New strategy implementation planning has not yet happened in an organized way, and
the work is still in progress to interpret the strategic items into actionable tasks within the
business units and support functions.

Currently most of the strategy implementation planning happens through the bi-annual
business unit and business support function reviews with the management team. Within
the review meetings, the unit’s or function’s strategic items for the next fiscal half are
reviewed, as well as the evaluation of reached targets from the past fiscal half. Long term
strategic plans are not reviewed in a formalized way.

Currently the business units and business support functions are planning and implement-
ing their strategy in silos. Reporting of plans and achievements are mainly communicated
up-stream towards the management team.

3.4 Summary (pros and cons of strategy and tools)

The refreshed strategy is quite simple in its current form. There are only four strategic
themes, which upon the business units and business support functions should interpret
and create their strategy implementation plans.

The interviews provided the following input on the current strategy implementation plan-
ning and tools, described in Table 2.
 7 (67)

Pros

+ Some units have a working process of planning, executing, adjusting and follow-up
+ Recently there has been communication how decisions or achievements link to the strategy
+ Agile strategy execution allows country operations to establish also their own strategic style
when needed
+ Autonomy and personal decision making are encouraged
+ Extended Leadership Team comes together twice per year, which is a good forum to focus
on strategic planning and implementation planning across all functions

Cons

- There is no unified way in strategy implementation planning or evaluation, which leads to a

situation where plans are not linked to strategy and strategic goals remain abstract
- No correlation of strategic items across business units or functions
- Country operations have to invent their own ways, and learning by mistakes is not the most
effective way to build new business in new market
- Changes to implementation are easily made without clear strategic decision
- Accountability has been hard to identify within roles and targets

Table 2 Summary of findings from the stakeholder interviews

The interviewed persons (N=10, consultant level excluded) evaluated the current pro-
cesses and tools from 1 to 5 (1 being weakest, 5 being best). The questions and their
average scores are described in Table 3. The scores indicate that the stakeholders feel
that the current strategy implementation process and tools are graded as moderate.

Question Score
How well does the organization support strategy implementation 2,2 / 5,0
plan formulation in regards of process?
How well does the organization support strategy implementation 1,7 / 5,0
plan formulation in regards of guidelines or tools?
How well does the organization support strategic implementation tar- 2,6 / 5,0
get evaluation?

Table 3 Evaluation of the current case company strategy implementation plan-

ning processes and tools
 8 (67)
The interviews and the grading from evaluation reflects that in its current form, there is
no formalized process or tool to plan for strategy implementation across the case com-
pany.

The target evaluation is much based on financial target evaluation, where there are good
measurements available. But the implementation of strategic items which include quali-
tative or non-financial targets, are not evaluated in a formalized way.

4 Good practice of strategy implementation in literature

In this section, the potential strategy implementation frameworks are identified from lit-
erature. The studied strategy implementation frameworks include planning of the imple-
mentation as well as implementing the strategic objectives as goals or targets for the
organization with tools and processes that ensure effective execution of the strategy.

4.1 Overview of this data stage

The literature study included only frameworks specifically designed on strategy imple-
mentation. For example, strategy planning tools, leadership models and quality manage-
ment frameworks were omitted from the study.

The following strategy management and implementation frameworks were studied in

more detail:

• Balanced Scorecard
• OKRs
• Hoshin Kanri

4.2 Balanced Scorecard

As the old strategy from 2014 was based on the Kaplan and Norton’s strategy map, it
was easy to pick Balanced Scorecard, also by Kaplan and Norton (1996), as one of the
potential strategy implementation frameworks.
 9 (67)
Idea behind the Balanced Scorecard is to introduce company management measures
that help to indicate future performance in addition to the traditional financial measures,
which indicate past performance.

“The objectives and measures of the scorecard are derived from an organization’s vision
and strategy. The objectives and measures view organization performance form four
perspectives: financial, customer, internal business process, and learning and growth.
These four perspectives provide the frameworks for the Balanced Scorecard.” (Kaplan
and Norton, 1996).

The framework of Balanced Scorecard is presented in Figure 2. The organizations vision

and strategy are interpreted into actionable strategic objectives using the four different
perspectives.

Figure 2 Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996)

4.2.1 Clarifying and translating the vision

In order for an organization to start implementing Balanced Scorecard, the top manage-
ment must clearly understand and gain consensus on how the organization’s strategy
and vision translates into specific strategic objectives at a business unit level.
 10 (67)
The translation must start from the financial and customer perspectives. Once these ob-
jectives have been established, an organization then identifies the objectives and
measures for their internal processes.

Finally, there must be a linkage to the former objectives from the learning and growth
objectives. These objectives reveal the investments for example on recruitment and skill
development.

4.2.2 Financial perspective

“Building a Balanced Scorecard should encourage business units to link their financial
objective to corporate strategy. The financial objectives serve as the focus for the objec-
tives and measures in all the other scorecard perspectives.” (Kaplan and Norton, 1996).

All the other perspectives should link to the financial perspective. Combined the Bal-
anced Scorecard should tell a story of the strategy and how it will deliver desired long-
term performance.

Since different business units might be in different stages of their lifecycle, they should
determine appropriate financial metrics fitting their strategy, but still link them to the cor-
porate financial measures.

The typical strategical themes for the financial perspective are:

• Revenue growth and mix

• Cost reduction/productivity improvement
• Asset utilization/investment strategy

4.2.3 Customer perspective

“The customer perspective enables companies to align their core customer outcome
measures –satisfaction, loyalty, retention, acquisition, and profitability – to targeted cus-
tomers and market segments.” (Kaplan and Norton, 1996).
 11 (67)
To achieve measures for the customer perspective, the business unit must understand
the market and customer segments it is targeting with its products and services. After
identifying the targeted segments, objectives and measurements can be set to these
segments.

Kaplan and Norton (1996) have divided the measurements into Customer Core Meas-
urement Group and into Customer Value Proposition Measurements.

Customer Core Measurement Group describes generic measures used by almost all
companies:

• market share
• customer acquisition
• customer retention
• customer satisfaction
• customer profitability

These are lagging measures, which tell the outcome of actions.

The latter, Customer Value Proposition Measurements are leading measures, including
three classes of attributes:

• Product and service attributes: functionality, quality and price

• Customer relationship: quality of purchasing experience and personal relation-
ships
• Image and reputation

Attributes selected from these classes can be measured frequently and can help to ad-
just operations or strategy and affect the lagging indicator outcomes.

4.2.4 Internal-Business-Process perspective

“For the Internal-Business-Process perspective, managers identify the processes that

are most critical for achieving customer and shareholder objectives.” (Kaplan and Nor-
ton, 1996).
 12 (67)

Three principal business processes should be looked at in a value chain model, starting
top-down:

• Innovation
• Operations
• Postsale service

Objectives and measurements can be derived from the review of the value chain.

4.2.5 Learning and growth perspective

“The objectives established in the financial, customer, and internal-business-process

perspectives identify where the organization must excel to achieve breakthrough perfor-
mance. The objectives in the learning and growth perspective provide the infrastructure
to enable ambitious objectives and the first three scorecard perspectives.” (Kaplan and
Norton, 1996).

The learning and growth perspective includes three principal categories:

• Employee capabilities
• Information system’s capabilities
• Motivation, empowerment, and alignment

The employee capabilities include three core measurements:

1. Employee satisfaction
2. Employee retention
3. Employee productivity

4.2.6 Summary of measures

Each perspective has their own core measures which are typical to all organizations and
organizational units.
 13 (67)
In addition to the core measurements, businesses have their own distinctive measures
as proposed by Kaplan & Norton (2000).

When designing the measures, it should be illustrated how the specific measure can be
quantified and displayed.

4.2.7 Three principles in linking the Balanced Scorecard measures into strategy

There are three main principles how the Balanced Scorecard measures can be linked
back to the strategy.

• Performance drivers
• Cause-and-effect relationships
• Linkage to financials

These principles are addressed in the following paragraphs.

4.2.8 Performance drivers

Performance drivers are used to described how the organization or organizational unit is
going to achieve the targets it has indicated on the Balance Scorecard measures.

Performance drivers act as leading indicators, so they can be measured during the im-
plementation period.

4.2.9 Cause-and-effect relationships

All the objectives and performance drivers should be created in a way that they tell a
story about the organization’s or organizational unit’s strategy. They should build chains
of if-then statements, for example “If the performance driver is executed successfully,
then the measure is reached.” or “If the objective is achieved, then the financial target is
reached.”.
 14 (67)
4.2.10 Linkage to financials

When constructing the Balanced Scorecard, the cause-and-effect relationships should

be modelled across all the perspectives leading back to the financial perspective.

4.2.11 Communicating and linking

Once the organization’s strategic objectives have been aligned with the strategy and
vision, the scorecard with its objectives should be communicated to the entire organiza-
tion. Typically, the corporate level scorecard is translated to business unit specific score-
cards.

The objective for communication is to make a linking of business unit’s objectives to the
organization’s overall strategy. This way everyone working in the business units can un-
derstand what the strategic objectives are and how an individual business unit is planning
to achieve organization’s strategic objectives.

The business unit specific scorecard also enables the business unit to effectively com-
municate across their objectives across business units as well as to the corporate level
executives. Communicating the business unit specific strategic objectives ensure higher
level of alignment across the whole organization.

4.2.12 Planning and target setting

Norton and Kaplan (1996) propose that the organization should include ambitious stretch
targets as strategic measures. Timeline for these targets is proposed from three to five
years out, including managers to forecast milestones for each measure during the next
fiscal year.

“For example, if the business unit were a public company, target achievement should
lead to a doubling or more of the stock price.” (Kaplan and Norton, 1996).

After agreeing on the stretch targets, the customer, internal process and learning and
growth measures should be set.
 15 (67)
After setting the measures, gaps between the targets and the current measures enable
managers to align resource allocation and set priorities on strategic initiatives and actions
to close the gaps.

Setting stretch targets, measures and strategic initiatives must happen in alignment
across the whole organization. Targets set by individual business units should be mutu-
ally reinforcing and on the other hand, lack of measures in some other business unit or
support unit might block the achievement of the set targets.

Finally, the long-term strategic plan is linked to budgeting and specific milestones for the
next year, which help them act on strategic initiatives and to track the progress along the
way to the long-term targets. “(That is, as part of the integrated planning and budgeting
process,) executives should establish short-term targets for there the expect to be,
monthly or quarterly, on the outcome and performance driver measures for customer
and consumers, innovation, operation processes, as well as employees, systems, and
organization alignment.” (Kaplan and Norton, 1996).

4.2.13 Strategic feedback and learning

“A strategic feedback system should be designed to test, validate and modify the hypoth-
eses embedded in the business unit strategy.” (Kaplan and Norton, 1996).

Idea of testing and validating the cause-and-effect relationships embodied in a Balanced

Scorecard is to get managers to systematically to think about their strategy and promote
strategic learning. Testing happens for example through correlation analysis where the
hypnotized cause-and-effect relationships are examined by measuring the correlation
between two or more measures. Validation can happen instead of looking at the statisti-
cal data, which might be received insufficiently late, with anecdotal reporting from the
field where new strategy is being implemented.

Organizations can also use cross-organizational teams on identify strategic initiatives

and test the cause-and-effect relationships in value chains. For example, a customer
delivery value chain can consist team members from marketing and sales to delivery
team members. They can work to identify the measures and initiatives that should be
tracked on the Balanced Scorecard.
 16 (67)
The strategy should be reviewed systematically. The review meetings should focus in-
stead of looking at operational issues to look at the progress of the strategic measures.
Review process provides the organization an opportunity to learn whether the strategy
is working or not.

Operational review meetings should occur as well, and be linked with the strategy re-
views. This further improves the effectiveness of the learning process.

4.3 Objectives and Key Results (OKRs)

Objectives and Key Results is a management framework created in the United States in
1968 by a psychology professor Edwin Locke. Ideology in behind the framework is to set
specific hard goals that drive to higher level of output.

Simply put, an Objective is WHAT is wanted to be achieved. Key Result is HOW the
Objective will be achieved.

OKRs have high emphasis on increasing the operational performance of the organiza-
tion. As described by Locke and Latham (2013) high goals have been proven in field
research to improve performance on individual level.

Objectives and Key Results are meant to be made public. The idea behind this is that it
promotes accountability and co-operation, when people can see what others are working
with and what their goals are.

4.3.1 Objectives

Objectives are something that are achieved when Key Results are reached. Objectives
need to be aligned with the organization’s vision and strategy. Defining the company
wide Objectives starts from the top, but alignment to the top-level goals must happen on
all levels of the organization. The vision and the Objectives must be communicated
clearly to all levels. This ensures that all members of the organization are setting their
own Objectives to help gain the whole organizations Objectives. When people start to
understand how their work connects to the bigger picture, it also helps to motivate them.
 17 (67)
Some of the Objectives are defined top-down, but some Objectives might come from the
workforce level, bottom-up. This helps the organization to foster innovation, since most
innovations come from the edges of the organization, not typically from the core. Doerr
(2018) proposes that a good mix of top-down vs. bottom-up Objectives is considered to
be around 50/50%. Objectives can be designed also to work side-ways, with cross-or-
ganizational Objectives.

Objectives can be divided into two categories, committed goals and aspirational goals:

• Committed Objectives are tied into the organization’s metrics, mostly in the fi-
nancial domain. They are supposed to be achieved in full. But is also noted by
Klau (2013) that also the committed objectives should be a bit uncomfortable for
their owner, i.e. push to achieve improved performance. Business-as-usual tasks
should not be OKRs.
• Aspirational Objectives are stretched goals, where the target is something fur-
ther out, associated with higher risks in achieving and connected to the bigger
picture of the organization’s future vision, or for example something that would
make a significant impact on the organizations business.

4.3.2 Key results

Key Results are the means to get to the Objectives. They must be specific, time-bound,
measurable and verifiable. Key Results should also have emphasis on quality as well as
quantity, to block use of possible short-cuts to achieve the Objective.

It is better to have fewer Key Results and prioritize on the ones that help best to achieve
the Objective.

When Key Results are designed to the measurable and verifiable, they can be evaluated.
Doerr (2018) describes that Google uses the following evaluation criteria:

• Key Results for Committed Objectives:

o Score of 1.0 (100%) is success. Everything below is considered a failure.

• Key Results for Aspirational Objectives:

o 0.7 – 1.0 = green. (We delivered.)
 18 (67)
o 0.4 – 0.6 = yellow. (We made progress, but fell short of completion.)
o 0.0 – 0.3 = red. (We failed to make real progress.)

4.3.3 Setting OKRs

OKRs are not meant to be engraved in stone, and they can be changed at any point of
the journey. Some Key Results might be set even a few weeks after the Objective has
been established. OKRs should be transparent and shared among the organization.

OKRs can be used on all levels, organizational, unit, team and personal levels. But, each
OKR should have a single owner, in accountable of the OKR.

Some Objectives might and in most organizations should be shared between organiza-
tional units or teams. The shared Objectives should be agreed together, but this process
also further ensures communication, visibility and alignment across the organization.

Typical approach for planning for an organization’s top-level OKRs are before a new
quarter. For Q1 planning also annual Objectives can be considered to point a direction
for the whole year. Cascaded OKRs are planned in subsequence of the top-level OKRs
within a few weeks after the top-level Objectives have been communicated. As stated by
Doerr (2018), the typical cycle for OKRs is from three to six months.

4.3.4 Tracking OKRs

OKRs are meant to be tracked throughout their cycle. It is stated by Doerr (2018), that
there are four options in mid-life OKR evaluation:

• Continue: If a green zone (“on track”) goal isn’t broken, don’t fix it.
• Update: Modify a yellow zone (“needs attention”) key result or objective to re-
spond to changes in the workflow or external environment. What could be done
differently to get the goal on track? Does it need a revised time line? Do we back-
burner other initiative to free up resources for this one?
• Start: Launch a new OKR mid-cycle, whenever the need arises.
• Stop: When a red zone (“at risk”) goal has outlived its usefulness, the best solu-
tion may be to drop it.”
 19 (67)

4.3.5 Evaluating OKRs

Assessment of the OKRs happens with scoring and evaluation. The goal is not to rate
the employees based on the OKRs, but to help objectively to assess what went well,
what went wrong and why. The OKRs give a possibility to self-assess and reflect the
past cycle and to determine what could be learned and improved in the future. In order
to ensure the objective point of view of OKRs is also why they should be mainly divorced
from compensations.

4.4 Hoshin Kanri

Hoshin Kanri is a strategy deployment approach that is part of a larger management

system, TQM (Total Quality Management). In this thesis TQM is out-scoped and the
focus is only on the strategy implementation model. Fully implementing the whole Hoshin
Kanri framework would also require knowledge of TQM.

Hoshin Kanri is used after the organization has established a clear vision about their
business. Hoshin Kanri helps to lay out that vision in strategy planning phase into long-
term and short-term strategic plans. It is also used to communicate the organization’s
strategy and the policies required to implement the strategy.

Hoshin Kanri cycle is an annual cycle, but it is used to implement a 3 to 5-year strategic
plan, which in turn takes the organization towards the vision set from 5 to 15 years ahead.

“It is concerned with four primary tasks and the cycle is an annual one (…). First it fo-
cuses an organization’s attention on corporate direction by setting, annually, a vital few
strategic priorities; secondly, it aligns these with local plans and programmes; thirdly, it
integrates them with daily management; and finally, it provides for a structured review of
their progress.”, (Zairi, M & Erskine, A.,1999)

Hoshin Kanri is top-down approach, but also considers feedback bottom-up (explained
later with the term “catch ball”). It also emphasizes that when people have visibility on
top-level priorities and goals, they can align their own goals towards them and figure out
the ways to get there by themselves, using the Hoshin Planning, Deployment and Control
 20 (67)
models; “There is no elaborate formulation of actions and targets for others to achieve.
The approach is organic and is based on continuous improvement and breakthrough
change, which is rooted in what is possible and open to discussion.”, (Zairi & Er-
skine,1999).

Strategy implementation planning is also facilitated using Kaizen events, which include
personnel from all levels of the company as described by Chiarini (2013).

In high-level, Hoshin Kanri consists of a driver policy planning (Hoshin planning) and a
four-part Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle (Hoshin Deployment and Control).

The high-level Hoshin Kanri model is described in Figure 3. The strategy modeling starts
by clarifying the vision and the overall top-level strategic objectives for the long and short-
term. The focus in this thesis is highlighted with a grey square, where the strategy imple-
mentation planning is done.

Figure 3 The Hoshin Kanri model (focus area of this thesis outlined in the gray
box), (Hutchins, 2008).
 21 (67)
4.4.1 Hoshin Planning: Drivers

The strategic plan should help to identify necessary Drivers for which the policies are
developed.

Hutchins (2008) describes the typical drivers:

• Customer (internal and external)

• Employee
• Suppliers (internal and external)
• Processes
• Organization
• Technology
• Finance
• Design and innovation

Drivers represent the elements the organization needs to consider in order to reach their
vision. Each of Drivers are broken down to areas where the organization needs to be
successful, for example “record levels of customer retention”. Areas can be gathered
using different methods, for example using management teams, mixed groups of people
around the organization to bring up their ideas under each Driver.

4.4.2 Hoshin Planning: Driver Policies

After the ideas have been gathered, they are condensed into policy statements, for ex-
ample:

We want to be the most relevant cybersecurity partner for our customers

It is our Goal to provide first-class customer experience, by having most talented

people, services across all levels of cybersecurity, and to help the customers to
target their cybersecurity budget cost-efficiently.

There is a problem that the policy wording can be interpreted in many ways by different
readers. That is why next the policies will be added with metrics so they can be meas-
ured.
 22 (67)

4.4.3 Hoshin Planning: Driver Measures to KPIs

Created Driver Policies are each in turn reviewed and their most important Performance
Indicators are written down. The Performance Indicators are then added with concrete
Measures. It is good practice to analyze the current situation using the Measures and
determine a gap to desired state. Benchmarking to other industry leaders, using intelli-
gence reports or asking the customers, can be used as tools to analyze the gap. If there
are too many Performance Indicators and Measures, then it is necessary to prioritize the
list in relation to the vision, for example which of them will have the most impact in least
time. Changes to prioritization can also happen later, for example due to unseen market
changes.

After deciding on the Performance Indicators, Measures and the gaps, the final KPIs can
be derived, which will be tracked to indicate progress. Figure 4 shows the roadmap to
identify KPIs. First the Drivers are identified and mapped into Performance Indicators.
They are further mapped into measures and then benchmarked with other organizations.
Finally, a list of prioritized KPIs are formed.

Figure 4 Identifying the KPIs, (Hutchins, 2008).

 23 (67)

4.4.4 Hoshin Planning: X-matrix

After the vision, long-term strategic plan, short term strategic plan, activities and KPIs
have been defined, they can be documented on the Hoshin X-matrix. They could be
document using other tools too, for example the Balanced Scorecard. There are a few
flavors of the X-matrix, but the basic idea is the same.

Hoshin X-matrix is depicted in Figure 5. The main areas of the matrix are described
below:

• Results (or Long-term breakthrough objectives)

o Describes the “What”. If the organization succeeds in implementing the
strategy, what will be achieved?
• Strategies (or Annual objectives)
o Describes the goals the organization should focus on the current year
• Tactics (or Top-Level improvement priorities)
o Describes the “How”. How the organization is planning to achieve the pri-
oritized goals.
• Process (or Target to improve, or KPI)
o Includes development activities with measurable targets
• Accountability
o Defines who is actually in responsible of the work

The crossings of the matrix are used represent both correlation between the items, and
ownership, accountability and responsibility on each of the items.
 24 (67)

Figure 5 Hoshin X-Matrix, (Chiarini, 2013)

The Hoshin X-matrix is different for each level, unit or team in the organization. The X-
matrix provides a single-view on how all the activities and KPIs are linked back to the
strategy and objectives, and can be used as a tool in communicating the prioritized stra-
tegic plan.

4.4.5 Hoshin Deployment

When the top-level Drivers and KPIs have been established, they are taken downwards
the organization and interpreted into organizational unit’s terms and broken down to de-
velopment projects, activities and sub-KPIs. This can happen using the X-matrix or some
other activity and KPI tracking tools.

“This deployment process will continue downwards, layer by layer until it reaches direct
supervision and the workforce, and is restated each time that it moves down. By the time
that the KPIs reach the bottom layers they will have been broken down into multiple and
very specific objectives. Whilst this is taking place, each layer of management will go
 25 (67)
through a similar process to the top team to identify Departmental Vision, Drivers and
their own KPIs. These will be submitted up to the top team and agreed together with the
top-down issues. This is sometimes referred to as a ‘catch ball’ process. This may seem
tedious and a lot of work but it does not actually take up a huge amount of time and the
results are often surprising. Not only do people know what is expected of them, they also
feel that they have had the opportunity to contribute their ideas and feel part of the or-
ganization as a community.”, (Hutchins, 2008).

Cross-functional goals are also needed to be agreed, so units can align their activities
and KPIs.

Lastly, the top-level management must decide of the final goals and KPIs that need to
dealt within a year.

The decided activities and KPIs are formulated into cascading KPI sheets.

4.4.6 Hoshin Control

The Control framework is based on the Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) cycle. The PDCA
cycle is a general model which can be applied to all work. In Hoshin Control model the
idea behind it that it can also work for continuous improvement, because learnings from
the previous cycle can be used to affect the planning phase of the next cycle and to
improve it.

The PDCA control model should be applied to all activities and KPI’s.

The full Hoshin policy deployment model on the organizational level is mapped with the
PDCA control model in Figure 6. The Policy is crafted on the top-level and cascaded
down in the organization. The organizational levels implement the Policies, and they fre-
quently report their progress and top-level can act upon the feedback received from the
lower levels of the organization to adjust the Policies.
 26 (67)

Figure 6 The full Hoshin Policy Deployment with the PDCA control model,
(Hutchins, 2008)

In an ideal situation, the Control PDCA model would be functional in all levels as its own
process. This would ensure autonomy also on the team and employee levels. Figure 7
shows the full Management Control PDCA model across all the organizational levels.
The activities are followed up and reviewed more frequently on the operational level than
on the management level. The review with the top-level management happens annually.
 27 (67)

Figure 7 The full Management Control PDCA model, (Hutchins, 2008)

4.5 Summary of the reviewed frameworks

The basic ideology behind all the studied frameworks is similar, having the following high-
level features:

1. Establish an agreement on top level of organization’s vision and long-term goals

2. After reaching agreement, formulate short-term objectives and prioritize them
3. Communicate the objectives to organizational units and have them to create their
own strategy and align their objectives towards the top-level objectives as well as
with other organizational units’ objectives
4. Objectives should have measurable targets (the WHAT) with linkage on how
these targets are planned to be achieved (the HOW)
5. All objectives should have an accountable owner
6. Targets should be quantitative and linked back to financial performance
7. Progress is measured in frequent cycles and there is a continuous feedback loop
for improvement
8. Focus and alignment are key factors in implementation
 28 (67)
Summary of comparison between the reviewed strategy implementation framework is
presented in Table 4 and each framework is evaluated in detail in the following para-
graphs.

Framework Pros Cons

Balanced Scorecard Considers adequate per- Constructing the Balanced

spectives of strategy imple-
mentation.
Design approach helps to fa-
cilitate linkage to top-level
objectives and financial tar-
gets.
Scorecard template can be
complex.
Cascading the Balanced
Scorecard in the organization
can be slow.

OKRs Simplistic approach to setting Creation correct OKRs re-

and evaluating targets. quires practice.
Short cycle enables strict fo- Risk of setting OKRs that do
cus. not relate to the top-level ob-
jectives.

Hoshin Kanri Strategy implementation The comprehensive strategy

planning model and process
comprehensive.
The X-matrix shows all the
necessary relationships be-
tween long-term and short-
term objectives and the ac-
tions and accountable people
in single view.
implementation planning
model and process is also
complex.
Managing and communi-
cating the X-matrix on differ-
ent organizational levels can
be complex.

Table 4 Comparison of the reviewed strategy implementation frameworks

4.5.1 Pros and cons of Balanced Scorecard

Balanced Scorecard helps to consider all the necessary perspectives when design strat-
egy implementation. Balance Scorecard design also puts emphasis on causal chains
across all perspectives, leading back to the financial perspective. This helps in prioritizing
objectives and helps to make sure that all objectives, their performance drivers and
measures are aligned towards improving the financial performance.

Typical Balanced Scorecard cycle is a bi-annual or an annual implementation and review

cycle.
 29 (67)
Constructing the Balanced Scorecard using a template may be at first a daunting task,
especially for a non-experienced manager. The Balanced Scorecard template is not a
feasible tool for managing employee level objectives and targets.

4.5.2 Pros and cons of OKRs

OKRs provide a simplistic way to create objectives and targets. In essence, the Objec-
tives and Key Results are similar to Balanced Scorecard’s Performance Drivers and
Measures.

OKRs take a different approach on the stretched targets, where it is more difficult to put
a concrete financial measure behind the objective, but if achieved the objective should
make a significant impact or even transform the business. Setting the stretch goal should
be done in a way that is even unlikely to achieve it in full.

OKRs cycle for setting objectives and targets is considerably shorter, typically one fiscal
quarter. Although some of the Objectives might be set for a longer period, but still the
Key Results are set for a shorter period.

With OKRs and their shorter cycle and flexible target setting ideology, it is easier for an
organization to include objectives also from bottom-up, and hence they can also act as
an employee management tool.

With OKRs simple model, the risk might be that managers setting the objectives might
neglect planning how the Objective’s relate to the financial metrics of the company, alt-
hough they would align the Objective’s to the company’s strategic initiatives.

4.5.3 Pros and cons of Hoshin Kanri

Hoshin Kanri framework helps unfold the long-term plan and formulate the short-term
strategy. The short-term strategy is planned typically for 3-5 years, which is then used to
set objectives for the annual Hoshin Kanri cycle.

Hoshin Kanri’s approach in setting Driver Policies, Drivers and KPI’s seems at first a
complex process with different terminology with other evaluated strategy management
 30 (67)
frameworks, but they are also quite similar concepts than in Balanced Scorecard and
OKRs. Hoshin Kanri has just some more dimensions to be evaluated when creating and
prioritizing the objectives. Not all of the dimensions might be applicable to consider at all
levels of the organization.

The Control system in Hoshin Kanri is more elaborated than in the other frameworks, but
in essence Balanced Scorecard is designed to work with frequent reviews along the im-
plementation cycle.

Hoshin Kanri’s X-matrix is similar to the Business Scorecard template, but takes a form
to elaborate how the top level, long-term vision relates to the short-term strategy, objec-
tives and measurements.

The whole Hoshin Kanri framework is quite complex to adopt fast, and would require
training and discussion on aligning the understanding how the framework works and is
adapted with the individual organization and organizational units.

4.6 Conceptual framework

With correctly done cherry-picking, the conceptual framework for the case company can
be a mix of multiple frameworks.

Taking the best of each would look for example something like this (after having the case
company agreeing on the top-level vision and longer-term strategy):

• Creation of prioritized objectives using Balanced Scorecard causal-paths design

method, making sure that the objectives align with the top-level targets and that
they link to the financial targets
• Choosing the most urgent priorities for next quarter
• Writing the Objectives and Key Results in an OKR format
• Create a Hoshin Kanri X-matrix based on the OKRs and assign accountable peo-
ple in charge of each task
• Evaluate progress of each Key Result and adjust accordingly
• Review results at the end of the quarter and prepare the next cycle
 31 (67)
Risk with mixing frameworks is, that their terminology and key concepts can get confused
between each other, leading into uncertainty in the organization, which framework should
actually be used.

Taking the aforementioned risk into account, and by assessing that the case company
culture promotes simplicity over complexity and coaching over top-down management,
the best conceptual framework to propose would be fully implementing the OKR frame-
work.

In high level, implementing OKRs would mean introducing the whole organization how
Objectives and Key Results need to be designed. The bi-annual Business Unit strategy
review and target setting cycle would be used to facilitate choosing prioritized Objectives
and reviewing Key Results. A new cycle of quarterly OKR review and setting cycle should
also to be introduced.

OKRs could also help the organization to improve coaching practices so that the em-
ployees could also write their own Objectives and Key Results and coaches have better
tools to track how people are progressing with their tasks and if they need assistance.

5 Co-developing strategy implementation tools for the case company

5.1 Overview of this data stage

This data state includes workshops with the selected stakeholders of the case company.

Purpose of the workshops is to summarize findings of the literature review, go through

the conceptual framework and to evaluate the options for the case company’s strategy
implementation framework.

5.2 Creating the strategic objectives and measures

5.2.1 Using Balanced Scorecard perspectives to translate the vision into strategic objectives

The case company’s vision in the refreshed strategy is “The trusted, go-to partner for
cybersecurity services in Northern Europe and the best place to work for professionals”.
 32 (67)
The case company’s current strategy is split into four strategic themes, as described in
the case company’s refreshed strategy (2018).

• Cybersecurity talent community

• Cybersecurity partner for digitalization
• Data-driven services built on platforms
• Expand market presence

Following the process of building a Balanced Scorecard, these strategic themes should
be translated into top-level strategic objectives using a strategy map approach. The strat-
egy map should address the four perspectives.

Figure 8 Strategic themes viewed through the four perspectives

Addressing each strategic theme through the different perspectives, top-level manage-
ment should agree on strategic short-term and long-term objectives. For example, the
strategic top-level objectives for the “Cybersecurity talent community” -theme can be
chosen as presented in Figure 9. The objectives are mapped into fitting perspectives.
 33 (67)

Figure 9 Defining top-level strategic objectives with the strategy map

5.2.2 Creating and validating organizational unit level strategic objectives

Organizational units should translate the top-level objectives into their business. They
should create their own prioritized, detailed strategic objectives and design how the ob-
jectives across different perspectives lead up to the financial objectives. Not all of themes
or high-level strategic objectives might be applicable to every organizational unit. They
idea behind this thinking process is to help the leaders and managers to select the ob-
jectives that would make most impact in the current situation.

“The art of management lies in the capacity to select from the many activities of seem-
ingly comparable significance the one or two or three that provide leverage well beyond
the others and concentrate on them.” (Grove, 2015).

During the process of designing the organizational unit level strategy map the three prin-
ciples identified in paragraph “4.2.7 Three principles in linking the Balanced Scorecard
measures into strategy” should be addressed.
 34 (67)
The design process should produce a description of causal paths across the organiza-
tional unit’s strategic objectives, performance indicators and measures, leading up to the
financial objectives. At this stage, also cross-organizational relationships between objec-
tives should be identified.

“The cause-and-effect logic of this design constitutes the hypotheses of the strategy.”,
Kaplan and Norton, 2001.

The design process can start with high-level mapping of the cause-and-effect relation-
ships between the organizational unit’s strategic objectives. This helps the organizational
unit to validate if their chosen objectives are indeed positively influencing the financial
objectives. The process does not have to start from bottom-up or top-down, it can also
start from the middle perspectives. Links between objectives do not either need to flow
through each perspective’s objectives.

An example of strategy map with causal paths is depicted in Figure 10.

 35 (67)

Figure 10 Causal paths of strategic objectives, Norton & Kaplan, 1996

After the prioritized objectives have been identified and validated using the cause-and-
effect mapping, Performance Drivers and Measures for each objective should be cre-
ated. An example description of this is shown in Figure 11. The strategic initiative (the
objective) is described in more detail and its performance drivers and outcome measures
are identified.
 36 (67)

Figure 11 Mapping of the Objective to Performance Drivers and Measures, Nor-

ton & Kaplan, 1996

Finally, the organization should have a description on which strategic objectives are their
short-term priorities, how they link to the financial perspective and how they can be
tracked and measured. Examples of Balanced Scorecard strategic Objectives, Perfor-
mance Drivers and Measures listing and the cause-and-effect relationships are de-
scribed in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
 37 (67)

Figure 12 Balanced Scorecard listing of Strategic Objectives and Measures

(Kaplan and Norton, 1996)
 38 (67)

Figure 13 Cause-and-effect relationships between Strategic Objectives and

Measures (Kaplan and Norton, 1996)

Creating the strategic objectives and measures this way helps the organizational unit’s
not only to validate, but also describe the logic behind their chosen objectives to the top-
level management. The created objectives, measures and performance drivers are pre-
sented to the top-level management and if approved, the organizational units can go
ahead to create their OKRs.
 39 (67)
5.3 Setting Objectives and Key Results

When the organizational unit’s strategic objectives and their measurements have been
identified, they can be translated into OKRs for persons in responsible of implementing
the them.

5.3.1 Setting Objectives

As described in paragraph “4.3 Objectives and Key Results (OKRs)”, Objectives are the
“Whats” of the strategy. Objectives should fall into two categories, committed and aspi-
rational objectives. Each Objective must have one accountable person.

A well-written Objective should express goals and intents, be aggressive yet realistic and
must be tangible and objective.

A committed Objective could be written for the case company’s organizational unit as
follows:

• Committed Objective: Average utilization for the unit in H1 is 80%

An aspirational Objective could be written for the case company as follows:

• Aspirational Objective: By the end of 2019, the company is the go-to employer
for cybersecurity professionals in Finland

5.3.2 Setting Key Results

As described in paragraph “4.3.2 Key results”, the Key Results are the “Hows” of the
strategy. Key Results must be specific, time-bound, measurable and verifiable.

The Key Results describe how the specified objective is planned to be achieved, how its
progress can be tracked and its completion can be measured. The performance indica-
tors and measures from the Balanced Scorecard strategy mapping should be used for
prioritization and guidance.
 40 (67)
Using the objective examples from the previous paragraph, the examples of a committed
and aspirational Key Results could be written as described in Table 5. The Objective
describes what the planned to be achieved and the Key Results describe how the Ob-
jective is thought to be reached and how its progress and success can be measured.

Committed OKRs: Objectives Key Results

Average utilization for the unit in H1 is 80%
By mid-December, 75% of the organizational
unit’s employees have confirmed billable pro-
jects for January, that fill 100% of their alloca-
tion
By mid-December the sales funnel has quoted
proposals out that exceed the remaining ca-
pacity and that are estimated to be closed by
the end of the year
Identify and cross-train 5 people with low utili-
zation to start working with full allocation in the
support team by January
Design a mentoring process that increases
the billable utilization of new junior level re-
cruits by 10% after their first month

Aspirational OKRs: Objectives Key Results

By the end of 2019, the company is the go-to
employer for cybersecurity professionals in
Finland
Improve employee satisfaction by addressing
reported lack of accountability by rolling out
strategy implementation framework for Fin-
land by the end of April, so they everyone can
set, track and measure their targets using
OKRs by the end of May
Design concrete measurements for tracking
employer attractive-ness by the end of Febru-
ary
By the end of May, publish five articles in the
main Finnish consumer medias to gain main
stream visibility for the brand

Table 5 Example of Objectives and Key Results

Each OKR must be evaluated at the end of each cycle. Table 6 describes how the OKRs
should be evaluated. Committed Key Results are to be reached in full, otherwise they
are deemed as failed. The Aspirational Key Results can be evaluated more loosely.

1.0 Success
Committed Key Results
0.0 – 0.9 Failed
Aspirational Key Results 0.7 – 1.0 Success
 41 (67)
0.4 – 0.6 Progressed, but not completed
0.0 – 0.3 Failed

Table 6 Evaluating OKRs

OKRs must be set on organizational level as well as on personal level and also some of
the OKRs should come bottom-up.

It is proposed that every person in the organization should write their own OKRs and
align them up to the higher level OKRs. This would also support the Situational Leader-
ship and coaching management model, that the organization has trained its managers
to use.

5.4 Annual strategy implementation cycle

The initial idea of a 4-month strategy implementation cycles was created during the dis-
cussion with the case company CEO during the co-development phase. It was discussed
that a quarterly 3-month cycle would be too short to begin with within an organization not
familiar in creating and settings strategic objectives. In contrast the annual 12-month or
bi-annual 6-month cycle was seen too long, as the fast market and organizational growth
are bound to create rapid changes to the business operations.

With the 4-month cycle, the planning can be aligned with the traits of the consultancy
business. For example, in May the holiday absences are being finalized and the sales
still have time to influence the June-August project sales, in case free capacity in the
holiday season is identified. The proposed the strategy implementation cycle is depicted
in Figure 14.
 42 (67)

Figure 14 The proposed annual strategy implementation cycle

The proposed strategy implementation cycle includes different phases that are described
in the following paragraph.

5.4.1 Creating strategic objectives, measures and OKRs

Each implementation cycle should be started with a planning phase.

In a “Planning” phase between mid-August and the end of September, the top-level strat-
egy and objectives should be reviewed on the organizational level. Leaders and manag-
ers should pick the most important objectives from the top-level strategic themes and
build the causal paths and validate the hypothesis of the prioritized objectives. In the
planning phase, the organization units should also identify interfaces to the other units’
and discuss with them on their prioritized objectives that link between the units.

After the Business Units have a description of the validated, prioritized strategic objec-
tives, they are agreed with the Leadership. This is called the “Agreement” phase.

Within a two-week “Management OKRs” phase, they design their agreed Objectives to
Performance Drivers and Measures using the Balanced Scorecard design approach de-
scribed earlier. Based on the design phase, Business Units, Support Units as well as the
top-level management creates their own OKRs.
 43 (67)

After writing the OKRs, they are published and communicated across the organization in
the “Communication of Management OKRs” phase.

Based on the management OKRs everyone can write and agree on their own OKRs
within the next two-week phase. This is called the “Company OKRs” phase.

This schedule also supports the Short-Term Estimate planning that the Business Units
need to do during November – December time-frame.

The proposed process and timeline for creating objectives, measures and OKRs is de-
picted in Figure 15, which describes the Planning and agreement phase, typically when
the annual cycle starts, but also when there are major changes in the company top-level
strategy or in the organizational level’s prioritized objectives. It also described how the
OKRs are first agreed on the management level and then communicated to the organi-
zation, after which the employees can write their own OKRs.

Figure 15 Process and timeline for creating objectives, measures and OKRs
 44 (67)
5.4.2 Publishing OKRs

After the OKRs have been written and agreed, everyone publishes their own OKRs in
digital format in the case company’s Intranet.

5.4.3 Tracking OKRs

All leaders, managers and coaches who have subordinates, track and evaluate progress
together with the employees at least on a monthly basis.

5.4.4 Evaluating OKRs

At the end of each cycle, preferably at the last days of the cycle all OKRs are evaluated
and scored.

The emphasis in evaluating the OKRs should be in learning what went well and what
could be improved in regards of execution as well setting the OKRs. The assessment of
OKRs should be done by the accountable person and reviewed together with the man-
ager or coach. An example evaluation is described in Figure 16.
 45 (67)

Figure 16 Evaluating OKRs (Doerr, 2018)

The key aspect in evaluating the OKRs is continuous improvement and learning. Hre-
biniak (2013) proposes that evaluation provide controls to the provide feedback about
performance, reinforce execution methods, provide a “corrective” mechanism, and facil-
itate organizational learning and adaptation. This control process is described in Figure
17.
 46 (67)
Figure 17 The control process (Hrebiniak, 2013)

Evaluation of top-level and organizational level OKRs can be included as part of the
cyclic business reviews.

Evaluations and key learnings of completed OKRs are updated on the company Intranet,
where they are visible to the organization. Completed OKRs are kept for one cycle, but
are deleted in the beginning of the next one.

5.4.5 Separation of OKRs and the compensation model

It is proposed by Doerr (2018) that OKRs are separated from the monetary compensa-
tion. Within the case company, incentives have been based on financial targets as well
as personal development targets. During the co-development workshops, most of the
interviewed managers were in favor of the model where only the financial targets would
remain in the incentive setting scheme, and the personal targets would be described as
OKRs.

This conceptual framework proposes the approach where incentive targets are base only
on financial targets or on figures that can be directly connected with financials.

5.5 Summary of the proposed strategy implementation framework

The proposed strategy implementation framework consists of three strategy implemen-

tation cycles, which include different phases. The summarized description of the strategy
implementation cycle is depicted in Figure 18. For clarity, the “Management OKRs” and
“Communication of Management OKRs” have been omitted from the figure. The annual
strategy implementation cycle starts from the end of September. Before the start, it is
proposed that the organizational level strategic objectives have been selected, validated
and prioritized and also agreed with the top-level management.
 47 (67)

Figure 18 Summary of the proposed strategy implementation cycle

Summary of the process from the strategic objective selection to validation and running
the OKR cycles is depicted in Figure 19. The process starts (1.) from the organizational
level selecting, (2.) validating and prioritizing and agreeing their strategic objectives for
the next cycle with the top-level management. When they have been agreed, the organ-
izational level and employee level OKRs are written (3.). The next cycles (4.) are run by
evaluating the previous cycle’s OKRs and writing new OKRs for the next cycle.
 48 (67)

Figure 19 Process from strategic objective selection to validation and running the
OKR cycles

6 Piloting the proposed framework by establishing a strategy implementation

plan for the case company using the framework

6.1 Overview of this data stage

In this chapter the proposed framework is used to build a strategy implementation plan
for the case company. Building the plan includes a planning using the Balanced Score-
card approach, selecting prioritized objectives for the next strategy implementation cycle
and creating personal OKRs for the person accountable for the strategy implementation
framework roll out.

6.2 Building the implementation plan

The implementation consists of the phases descried in the previous chapters; identifying
the top-level strategic objectives that are relevant to the organizational level strategy,
creating the organizational level strategic Objectives, Measures and Performance Driv-
ers using the Balanced Scorecard approach, validating them using the causal and cause-
and-effect mapping and finally creating the OKRs based on the validated Objectives and
Measures.
 49 (67)
6.2.1 Identifying the relevant top-level strategic objectives

Creating the organizational level strategic objectives and measures starts by reviewing
the case company’s top-level strategic objectives.

The top-level objectives for the four case company’s strategic themes are allocated to
each Balanced Scorecard perspective in in the following figures.

Figure 20 Strategic objectives for Cybersecurity talent community theme

 50 (67)

Figure 21 Strategic objectives for Cybersecurity partner for digitalization theme

Figure 22 Strategic objectives for Data-driven services built on platforms theme

 51 (67)

Figure 23 Strategic objectives for Expand market presence theme

From the listed top-level strategic objectives, the following were identified to be used for
creating the strategy objectives to build the strategy implementation plan:

• Financial
o EBITDA +10% of turnover
• Customer
o Holistic services as a true cybersecurity partner
• Internal Processes
o No clear top-level strategic objective for internal process, so the customer
perspective top-level objective was used instead
• Learning and Growth
o Install NixuCode company culture that inspires and empowers Nixuans

The objectives listed above are also depicted in Figure 24.

 52 (67)

Figure 24 The identified top-level strategic objectives for strategy implementation

planning

6.2.2 Creating and prioritizing strategic objectives and measures

The organizational level strategic objectives and measures were created based the iden-
tified top-level strategic objectives.

The organizational level strategic objectives and their Performance Drivers and
Measures are described in Table 7. The rationale behind choosing the organizational
level objectives is also described.

Top-level ob- Rationale Organization Strategic out- Performance

jective level strategic come measures Drivers
objectives

Financial per- Improving bill- Improve com- Increased com- Month-on-month

spective able utilization pany-wide billa- pany-wide aver- increase of the
increases ble utilization age billable of average billable
EBITDA +10%
EBITDA +5% utilization per utilization
of turnover
half
 53 (67)

Customer per- Improving the Improve cross- Amount of new cy- Amount of pro-
spective target setting business unit bersecurity part- posals with
practices will service integra- nership customers cross-business
Holistic service
improve ser- tion towards a per half unit services per
as a true cyber-
vice delivery, holistic client of- half
security partner
which will re- fering
duce ineffi-
ciencies in
work-alloca-
tion

Internal pro- In order to Improve cross- Amount of shared Cross-business

cesses provide holis- business unit strategic objec- unit strategy
tic services, strategy imple- tives between planning meet-
Holistic service
the service mentation plan- business units per ings executed in
as a true cyber-
delivery capa- ning process strategy imple- the beginning of
security partner
bilities need to mentation cycle the strategy im-
be improved plementation cy-
with aligned cle
cross-BU ob-
jective setting.

Learning and Improving effi- Enable efficient Increased em- Bi-annual em-
growth cient target target setting ployee satisfaction ployee satisfac-
setting prac- practices on clarity of work tion surveys
Install
tices help to per half
NixuCode com- Enable transpar- Timely executed
bring clarity to
pany culture ency between Increased amount target setting
employees
that inspires organizational of reached meas- and review
every day
and empowers level strategic urable targets meetings
work and ena-
Nixuans objectives
ble transpar-
ency across
units.

Table 7 Organizational level strategic Objectives, Performance Indicators and

Measures for strategy implementation

6.3 Validating the identified strategic Objectives and Measures

In order to validate if the chosen Objectives and Measures link back to the Financial
perspective, a causal path modelling (Figure 25) as well as cause-and-effect mapping
(Figure 26) was done.

The hypothesis of the chosen strategic objectives was validated using the causal path
modelling. The hypothesis is described in the grey text boxes in Figure 25.
 54 (67)

Figure 25 Causal paths of the chosen strategic objectives

The hypothesis of chosen Measures and Performance drivers were validated using the
cause-and-effect mapping described in Figure 26.

Figure 26 Cause-and-effect relationship mapping

 55 (67)
After the validation was done, that the chosen Objectives and Measures are valid, they
were prioritized. Prioritization was done based on analysis which of the strategic objec-
tives would have the biggest impact on the financial outcome.

The prioritized list of Objectives:

1. Enable efficient target setting practices

2. Enable transparency between organizational level strategic objectives
3. Improve cross-business unit strategy implementation planning process
4. Improve cross-business unit service integration towards a holistic client offering

6.3.1 Creating OKRs

Based on the prioritized list, the OKRs for the next strategy implementation cycle were
created. The committed and aspirational OKRs for the person in responsible for the strat-
egy implementation framework are presented in Table 8.

Committed OKRs Key Results

Plan and implement strategy implementation
framework adoption for one pilot market area.
Plan done by December 15th 2018.
Top-level management has described the top-
level strategic objectives by 10th of December.
Business and Support Units have reviewed
and prioritized top-level strategic by end of
2018.
Pilot market area has planned the strategic
objectives and written their OKRs for the next
strategy implementation cycle by January 20th
2019.
80% of the market area employees have writ-
ten and published their OKRs by the end of
January.

Aspirational OKRs Key Results

By the end of 2019, the whole company is us-
ing the new strategy implementation frame-
work.
Plan for the whole company strategy imple-
mentation framework adoption ready by the
end of Q1FY2019.
Employee satisfaction score for clarity of work
has increased +20% by the end of 2019.
Company-wide average utilization in
H2FY2019 has increased +5% compared to
the previous half.
 56 (67)

Cybersecurity partner level customers’ satis-

faction has increased 0,5 points in the satis-
faction survey.

Table 8 OKRs for the person accountable of the strategy implementation frame-
work roll-out

6.4 Lessons learned and feedback received on implementation planning

6.4.1 Creating strategic objectives

It requires strict focus to pick the most important strategic objectives. It is easy to pick
too many, which might prove time consuming to model all the objectives using the Bal-
anced Scorecard causal paths and cause-and-effect modelling. This needs to be em-
phasized both to the top-level management as well as to the Business and Support Units’
leaders and managers.

Linking all the objectives back to the financial perspective helps to ensure that the chosen
strategic objectives are at least thought through, though they might not still be detailed
in a level that describes how for example a business unit is actually able to roll-out the
individual tasks to achieve the object.

Selecting and validating strategic objectives using the proposed framework will need
simple, easily understandable examples so leaders and managers can adopt them.

The proposed framework will not take tasks away from the leaders and managers. This
will need clear communication and expectation management during the implementation
project. For example, instead of that they need to figure out suitable models themselves,
the proposed framework will bring benefits to their work they are anyway doing, in the
sense of structure, efficiency and clarity.
 57 (67)
6.4.2 Creating OKRs

With OKRs it is also easy to list too many Key Results. There needs to be clear focus on
the most important tasks as well as their measurements. It is assumed that getting the
OKRs set correctly will need many practice rounds.

When communicating and educating the individuals creating their OKRs, that Objectives
might transfers over to the next cycle, but the Key Results change.

Like with the strategic objectives, OKRs will need many clear examples, to individuals
easily adopt them in their own daily work life.

Also, as described in the proposed conceptual framework, all objectives must have a
single accountable owner, even the OKR might have connections to other organizational
units.

6.4.3 Tracking OKRs

OKR tracking must happen during the cycles, and this requires that the leadership prac-
tices support it. The interviews and workshops indicate that in the current operational
model most of the target tracking happens only in bi-annual development discussions.

Making OKRs visible to everyone will be a very important decision, especially if the eval-
uations will be also visible. The benefits must be evaluated in contrast to the risks they
might impose.

6.4.4 Annual cycle

The annual cycle will need a lot of guidance and communication to be adopted. Rolling
out the new framework and the annual cycle can be considered as a transformation pro-
ject.

One of the most important points of the annual cycle, are the evaluation points which
have been lacking from the current case company’s operational process at least on the
strategic objectives’ point of view. The evaluation process will need a strong commitment
 58 (67)
especially on the top-level management, to arrange and demanding OKR reviews with
the organizational level leaders.

6.5 Summary of the potentially revised framework

During the piloting, it was identified that it would be feasible to also add a short descrip-
tion of the thinking behind the chosen organizational level objectives, i.e. how they are
mapped back towards the top-level strategic objectives.

Stakeholder review by the company CEO did not bring additional changes to the pro-
posed framework.

7 Discussion and conclusions

This section contains the summary of the thesis, managerial recommendations to ensure
success of the roll-out of the proposed framework and the evaluation of the study and its
reliability and validity.

7.1 Summary of the thesis project

This thesis describes a customized strategy implementation for the case company. It
combines two best practices and adds a customized annual cycle to fit the operative
model of the case company.

The case company is a cybersecurity consulting and managed services company that
operates mainly in the Northern-Europe market area.
This Thesis focuses only on the strategy implementation process, the strategy formula-
tion process is out-scoped and but is assumed to be done before the proposed concep-
tual framework can be taken into use.

This thesis is based on qualitative analysis. The thesis project started with a current state
analysis to verify that the stated business problem was correct and if there were any
frameworks already in use for strategy implementation in some parts of the organization.
 59 (67)
Current state analysis was conducted by stakeholder interviews horizontally and verti-
cally in the organizational matrix.

The literature review was done by reviewing relevant literature on three identified strat-
egy implementation frameworks.

The conceptual model was developed together with individual stakeholders based on
the current state analysis. Stakeholders were picked who had either some kind of struc-
ture already in the daily work, experienced problems in strategy implementation or were
in a high decision-making position and accountable of the current top-level strategy.

Lastly, the strategy implementation framework was piloted by creating the implementa-
tion plan for the roll-out of the proposed framework.

7.2 Managerial recommendation

The proposed framework will need a transformation project to have it adopted fully in the
case company. To ensure success, the project must have an accountable owner to guide
it through, communicate and sell the idea of its benefits to the whole organization.

It will also need strong focus and commitment from the top-level management to adopt
the framework and practice of setting OKRs for themselves and effectively and timely
communicate their own OKRs to the rest of the company. Running the OKR cycles will
also need structured reviews and feedback loops with the organizational units.

Implementation of the framework also needs time from the organizational level manage-
ment to both practice the use of the framework, as well as to guide and coach their direct
reports to fulfill the required OKR setting and evaluation.

The framework should be aligned together with the leadership model that the case com-
pany has been adopting, the Situational Leadership model.

Additionally, the leaders and managers should further study effective goal setting prac-
tices.
 60 (67)
“Strategy execution is not a matter of luck. It is the result of conscious attention, combin-
ing both leadership and management processes to describe and measure the strategy,
to align internal and external organizational units with the strategy, to align employees
with the strategy through intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and targeted development
programs, and finally, to align existing management processes, report and review meet-
ings with the execution, monitoring, and adapting of the strategy.” (Kaplan and Norton,
2006).

7.3 Evaluation of the trustworthiness of the project and its outcome

Shenton (2004) describes the four criteria of trustworthiness for qualitative research:

• Credibility
o “One of the key criteria addressed by positivist researchers is that of in-
ternal validity, in which they seek to ensure that their study measures or
tests what is actually intended.” (Shenton, 2004).
• Transferability
o Transferability refers to the applicability of the research in other situations.
Transferability can be demonstrated on how in terms of contextual data
the research compares with other environments.
• Dependability
o “The concept of confirmability is the qualitative investigator’s comparable
concern to objectivity.” (Shenton, 2004).
• Confirmability
o “The concept of confirmability is the qualitative investigator’s comparable
concern to objectivity.” (Shenton, 2004).

The provisions of the aforementioned criteria by Shenton (2004) is described in Table 9

the together with the description of applicability in this thesis.

Quality criterion Applicability in this thesis

Credibility

Adoption of appropriate, well recognised The research for the current state analysis was
research methods done by using structured interviews. Further semi-
structured workshops were used in the co-devel-
opment phase.

Development of early familiarity with cul-
ture of participating organisations
Random sampling of individuals serving
as informants
Triangulation via use of different meth-
ods, different types of informants and
different sites
Tactics to help ensure honesty in inform-
ants
Iterative questioning in data collection
dialogues
Negative case analysis
Debriefing sessions between researcher
and superiors
Peer scrutiny of project
Use of “reflective commentary”
Description of background, qualifications
and experience of the researcher
Member checks of data collected and in-
terpretations/theories formed
Thick description of phenomenon under
scrutiny
Examination of previous research to
frame findings
Transferability
61 (67)
The researcher as well as all the interviewed per-
sons and selected stakeholders for the co-devel-
opment phase were employed with the case or-
ganization.
Not applied.
The interviewed persons in the current state anal-
ysis phase were from the management team,
market are leaders from different countries, as
well as all the different organizational level people
from a single business unit. This approach
brought insight from all sides and levels of the
case company. In the co-development phase, a
person from the management team, market area,
business unit and support unit were included to
provide different insight to the conceptual frame-
work.
Trust in honesty of the informants was based on
existing co-operation with the informants as well
as the familiarity of the researcher in the organiza-
tional roles and operative models of the inform-
ants.
The current state questionnaire was constructed
as an iterative list of questions.
Not applied.
Informal discussions on findings of the CSA with
the case company CEO. Co-development phase
included a short de-briefing in the beginning with
the case company CEO.
The thesis was reviewed by the case company
CEO before the final release.
Not applied.
The researcher has worked in the case company
for ten years, in various positions.
The current state analysis and the co-develop-
ment workshop memos were distributed to then
individual stakeholders for comments.
Described in chapter 3 as well as in the literature
review in chapter 4.
A review of the best practices as described in
chapter 4.
 62 (67)

Provision of background data to estab-
lish context of study and detailed de-
scription of phenomenon in question to
allow comparisons to be made
A single organization with three country opera-
tions was participating in the research. The data
collection log is presented in Appendix 1. The re-
search took place between June and November
2018.

Dependability

Employment of “overlapping methods” Structured interviews were used in the current

state analysis. Semi-structured workshops were
used in the co-development phase. Group inter-
views or workshops were not used.

In-depth methodological description to The stakeholder interviews can be repeated

allow study to be repeated based on the structured interview questions. The
semi-structured workshops require knowledge on
the organization’s annual cycles and operational
models.

Confirmability

Triangulation to reduce effect of investi- Interviews with different organizational roles.

gator bias

Admission of researcher’s beliefs and
assumptions
The initial research problem was based on the re-
searcher own experiences, but it was confirmed
by the structured interviews and the effort in build-
ing the used questionnaire without leading ques-
tions.

Recognition of shortcomings in study’s The proposed conceptual framework consists of

methods and their potential effects two best practice frameworks and is customized
to the case company. It may not be applicable di-
rectly to other organizations.

In-depth methodological description to Description of the research approach is described

allow integrity of research results to be in chapter 2.
scrutinised

Use of diagrams to demonstrate “audit The description of the research approach includes
trail" diagrams in chapter 2. Descriptive diagrams are
also used in chapter 5 to illustrate the strategy im-
plementation processes and validation.

Table 9 Criterion to describe the trustworthiness of the research, (Shenton, 2004)

Based on the evaluation of the trustworthiness criterion above, it can be concluded that
the majority of the criterion are passed on satisfactory level. Consequently, it can be
assumed that the appropriate level of trustworthiness of the thesis has been reached.
 63 (67)
References

Case company’s refreshed strategy (2018). [WWW Document]

https://www.nixu.com/release/nixus-growth-strategy-focuses-cybersecurity-industrial-
iot-and-data-driven-services [Accessed 25.6.2018]

Chiarini, A. (2013). Lean Organization: from the Tools of the Toyota Production System
to Lean Office (Perspectives in Business Culture). Springer.

Favaro, K. (2015). [WWW Document] https://hbr.org/2015/03/defining-strategy-imple-

mentation-and-execution [Accessed 25.6.2018]

Grove, A. (2015). High output management. Penguin Random House LLC.

Hrebiniak, L. (2013). Making Strategy Work: Leading Effective Execution and Change.
FT Press.

Hutchins, D. (2008). Hoshin Kanri : The Strategic Approach to Continuous Improve-

ment. Routledge.

Jacson, T. (2006). Hoshin Kanri for the Lean Enterprise: Developing Competitive Capa-
bilities and Managing Profit. Productivity Press.

Kaplan, R & Norton, D. (1996). The balanced scorecard : translating strategy into ac-
tion. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Kaplan, R & Norton, D. (2000). The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced

Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Kaplan, R & Norton, D. (2006). Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create
Corporate Synergies. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Kesterson, R. (2014). The Basics of Hoshin Kanri. Productivity Press.

Klau, R. (2013). Startup Lab workshop: How Google sets goals: OKRs. [WWW Docu-
ment]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJB83EZtAjc [26.9.2018]

Locke, E. & Latham, G. (2013). New developments in goal setting and task perfor-
mance. Routledge.

Sarjakivi, P. (2013). ‘Building a Strategy for an Emerging Business Area for a Consult-
ing Company’ Master’s thesis. Metropolia.

Shenton, A. (2004). ‘Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research pro-

jects.’ Education for Information, Vol. 22, pp. 63-73.
 64 (67)
Zairi, M & Erskine, A. (1999). ‘Excellence is Born out of Effective Strategic Deployment:
The Impact of Hoshin Planning’ International Journal of Applied Strategic Management,
vol. 2, issue 2 special edition, p. 28. [WWW Document] http://www.managementjour-
nals.com/journals/strategic/vol2/12-2-2-2.pdf [17.9.2018]
 65 (67)
Appendix 1. Actualized data plan

CONTENT SOURCE INFORMANT

DATA 1 - Review of the - Strategy re- CEO, 25.6.2018, 1 hour
CURRENT refreshed view CFO, 25.6.2018, 1 hour
STATE strategy and CCO, 18.6.2018, 1 hour
ANALYSIS the current - Stakeholder CDO, 6.7.2018, 1 hour
strategic style interviews CCO, 18.6.2018, 1 hour

- Analysis of Market Area Leader Finland,

the current 19.6.2018, 1 hour
strategy man-
agement tools Market Area Leader Benelux,
6.7.2018, 1 hour

Market Area Leader Sweden,

4.7.2018, 1 hour

Head of People Operations,

6.7.2018, 1 hour

Business Unit Leader, 28.7.2018, 1

hour

Business Manager, 4.7.2018, 1 hour

Consultant, 3.7.2018, 1 hour
DATA 2 Designing the - Stakeholder Head of People Operations,
BUILDING strategy man- workshops 5.11.2018, 1 hour
PRO- agement tools
POSAL - CSA and lit- Finnish Market Area Leader,
erature find- 7.11.2018, 1 hour
ings
Business Unit Leader, 7.11.2018, 1
hour

CEO, 9.11.2018, 1,5 hours

DATA 3 - Setting stra- - Stakeholder CEO, 15.11.2018, comments by

VALIDA- tegic targets meeting email
TION
/FEED- - Follow-ups
BACK - Improvement
ideas to initial
proposal
 66 (67)
Appendix 2. Current state analysis interview questions

Strategy planning
• How have you done strategy planning for your unit, role or organization?
• Did you make the plans according to the Nixu Strategy Map?
• Have you used some strategy management frameworks in planning?
• How long plans have you done?
• Have your plans or parts of the plan been reviewed by a supervisor, leadership
team, etc., before it's agreed to be put into implementation?
• Have your plans included measurable targets?
• Have your plans included measurement points during the implementation to
guide the implementation?
• Have the final plans been communicated up/down the organization before start-
ing implementation? If, how?

Strategy implementation
• From the Nixu Strategy Map 2014 presentation's slide 4, (excluding the financial
perspective) pick 3 strategic items that were most important to your business,
role or organization. Choose a certain period of time and describe how these
prioritized items were put in practice during that period (including leadership,
communication?
• Did the implementation in practice vary from the initial plan?
• Did you make changes to the plan during the implementation? How the changes
were communicated up/down the organization?
• Did you put any of the lower priority items into practice instead of the prioritized
ones? If, why?

Implementation measurement
• Was your strategy implementation measured as planned? If measurements were
not initially planned, did the strategy implementation measurements happen in
any organized way?
• Were there challenges in measuring the targets?
• How were your chosen strategic items been measured against the financial per-
spective items (in slide 4 of the Nixu Strategy Map)?
 67 (67)
Evaluation (1-5 grading)
• How well does the organization support strategic plan formulation in regards of
process?
• How well does the organization support strategic plan formulation in regards of
guidelines or tools?
• How well does the organization support strategic target evaluation?

Open questions
• How in your opinion the strategy implementation should be coordinated?
• What kind of strategy implementation tools have you previously used and found
useful?
• What kind of information would help in your strategy planning, target setting, im-
plementation and measurement?
 68 (4)
Appendix 3. Conceptual framework co-development meeting notes

Head of People Operations, 5.11.2018

General comments on strategy:

- Would be good to add clear communication from top-level if an organizational unit

should pick up strategic objectives from all strategic themes? There might difficulty on
seeing for example organizational units in supportive role to connect to the all themes.

- Some guidance would be nice to have how to prioritize which are correct the strategic
objectives?

Comments regarding the framework and the roll-out of the implementation framework:

- Would be important to have clear examples how the strategy implementation planning
and OKRs should be done

- BU's and managers are always busy, so how to fit the planning in their busy schedules?
For example, the two-week planning phase is really intense if it would need synchronized
calendar time from different leaders and managers. And if all consultants have a two-
week window to review their business unit's objectives and write their own OKRs based
on them, do they manage to do it?

- Should there be some more even more agile way to approach strategy implementation
planning?

- End of the year is really busy, which might result that the planned schedule for top-level
strategic planning cannot be done at the same time. For example, the Short Term Esti-
mates for next half are done also in November and reviewed in December. Might be
reasonable to align this better with the company financial schedule.

- It should be considered that monetary incentives should be updated to the HR tool,

need to be careful that setting OKRs won't add double work for managers. It also needs
clear communications how the OKRs are separated from monetary incentives.

Finnish Market Area Leader, 7.11.2018

General comments on strategy:

- "Strategy" term definition could be added.

Comments regarding the framework and the roll-out of the implementation framework:

- How to prevent strategy being implemented in silos? Should we use FI market area as
the pilot, to ensure we also test the cross-BU communication improvement.
 69 (4)
- Piloting could include facilitated workshops early on with the BU's and support units to
swiftly introduce the framework and to build the prioritized strategic objectives in a guided
process.

- The process should involve a cycle, that the Group level first defines the prioritized top-
level objectives, then market areas and the BU and support levels. When done, they
would be reviewed back "upwards" with market areas and the Group level.

- Bi-annual extended leadership team meetings could be used to discuss the top-level
strategy prioritization.

- Monetary incentive setting could have just the "cold" measurable targets and the OKRs
should guide how the cold targets tie into the top-level strategy, as well as what steps
are required for to be done in order to achieve the cold targets (and incentives). For
example, with sales, the incentives might still be sales quota, but Objective might be
"Selling more continuous services"

- Four-month cycle for OKR setting is better than bi-annual or annual, shorter time to
react on important things and for example during June everyone is always extremely
busy.

Business Unit Leader, 7.11.2018

General comments on strategy:

- How to make sure that the strategy is aligned on group level vs. in country silos?

- Strategy (Extended LT) meetings should facilitated so that they produce concrete out-
comes for strategy implementation.

Comments regarding the framework and the roll-out of the implementation framework:

- Incentives would be good to include personal development items as well, so how to

make sure that there is alignment between incentive setting and the OKR setting if the
happen in different cycles?

- How to ensure that important strategic objectives also come bottom-up?

- BU’s should be able to reserve enough time to make proper planning, also together.

- Which would be right forums to discuss strategic objective planning together?

- Short term estimates should happen after strategy implementation planning.

 70 (4)
- Changes to the objectives might need to happen fast due to market changes and mer-
gers and acquisitions.

CEO, 9.11.2018

Comments regarding the framework and the roll-out of the implementation framework:

- Strategy objectives should be built directly from the high-level strategy without the top-
level agreeing on specific detailed objectives for the BU’s. Agreement would sought bot-
tom-up based on the BU prioritizations.

- Should the objectives be created as projects in a task management tool like Jira, so
they could be viewed better as a whole and with their connections to other’s objectives

- Annual and bi-annual cycles would probably be too long and the objective setting would
overlap the busiest times of year, but quarterly cycles on the other hand be a bit short,
hence it would be rational to have the four-month cycles.

- BU’s should have the right also to accept OKRs for teams or individuals that for example
can quickly test new innovation or try out new things. Larger new innovation or service
development items should go into the Development MT.

- It would a good idea to have only “cold” targets on incentives, and all personal targets
would actually be OKRs.

- It should be clearly communicated that the OKR list is not a task list, but a list of most
important objectives and targets per cycle, that speed up change.